BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna  Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday the 23^rd day of December, 2010

C.C.No 86/10

Between:

Vadde Maddaiah, S/o.Vadde Maddaiah,

H.No.263, R/o. Devarabanda Village, Dhone Mandal ,Kurnool District. 518 222             

     ..…Complainant

-Vs-

1.The Horticulture Officer,

H.No. 8/13 , H.R. Centre , Near Jadila Factory ,Indira Nagar, Dhone Post and Mandal ,Kurnool District - 518 222.

2.K. Santhi Reddy, Sri Sai Charan Seeds,

Shop No. 51-8-3, Aidtya Complex, Opp. Market Yard, Kurnool -518 004

3. Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,

P.O.Box No. 77, A-3 Old MIDC, JALNA - 431 203, India                 

….…Opposite  Parties

                       This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. G. Madana Gopal, Advocate, for complainant, Smt. D.S. Saileela , Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri. G.Venu Gopal Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and Sri. P.Siva Sudharshan , Advocate for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 86/10

1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying  

1. to pay Rs.40,000/- towards the expenditure spent on the

crop,

1. to pay Rs.2,40,000/- towards the crop loss,
2. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for

causing mental agony  and hardship and also pay Rs.2,000/- for cost,

(d)        to pass any other order or orders which are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2)   The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-The complainant is having an extent of Ac.500 of land in Devarabanda Village. On          20-10-2009 the complainant purchased 40 packets of Bejo Sheetal Onion seeds from OP.No.1 and issued D.D for Rs.920/- towards the cost of the said seeds. The said seed was produced by OP.No.3 and marketed by OP.No.2. After purchase of the seed the complainant sowed the said seed in nursery beds and transplanted in his Acs.2 of land in Sy.No.532/1. The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.40,000/- for fertilizers, and pesticides and for conducting agricultural operations. At the time of the purchase of the seed OP.No.1 and representatives of OP.No.2 assured that the yield would be 122 quintals per acre. 120 days after transplantation the complainant observed absence of bulbs formation. Immediately he informed the same to Horticulture Department , Dhone. The complainant spent huge amount for raising the crop by borrowing. The minimum onion yield would be 120 quintals per acre. The prevailing market rate of onion is Rs.1,000/- per quintal. The complainant sustained loss of Rs.2,40,000/- due to the defect in the onion seed produced by OP.No.3. Hence the complaint.

3.     OP.No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The OP will distribute the seeds of the companies to the farmers under subsidy rates. The complainant purchased 40 packets of Bejo Sheetal onion seeds produced by OP.No.3. The lot No.of the seed is 94534.  The complainant transplanted onion crop in his land of Acs.2 in Sy.No.532/1. The complainant not informed OP.No.1 about the non information of bulbs. The reason for poor formation of bulbs may be due to unfavourable weather condition and due to rain during bulbs development stage. No other farmer who purchased seed in the same  lot complained regarding the loss of yield. The OP is only the distributing agency between the seed company and farmers.  The seed will be supplied to the farmers on subsidy raters. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        OP.No.2 filed written version stating that it never marketed  the seed produced by OP.No.3. OP.No.2 is not proper party. The complaint  is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

        OP.No.3 filed written version stating that onion crop will be raised in the rabi season only. The reason for the poor performance of the hybrid crop may be due to unfavourable whether condition and excessive soil moisture due to rain during bulb development stage. Pune red F1 variety of crop has to be raised in rabi season only but the complainant raised the onion nursery in khariff season. The complainant did not give the date of transplantation of the crop. The company did not supply defective seed to the farmers. The surrounding villagers who raised the same variety of onion crop got good yield.  The complainant did not mention in the complaint the date of harvesting and sale of onion. In the absence of said particulars the complainant can not be compensated. The complainant would have approached the company before harvesting the crop. The company is not liable to pay any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.      

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the OPs Ex.B1 to B8 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 to 3 are filed and 3^rd party affidavit of G.Rama Chandra Reddy , Surpanch of G.Yerragudi is  also filed.  

5.     The complainant as well as OPs 1 to 3 filed their written arguments separate.   

6.     The points that arise for consideration are      

(i)     whether the seed produced and supplied by OP.No.3 through OP.No.1 is defective ?.

ii)      whether the  complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(iv)   To what relief?

7. Point No.1& 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he got Acs.5 of land in Devarabanda (v) and that he raised onion crop in an extent of Acs.2 during khariff season in the year 2009. The complainant in his affidavit evidence clearly stated that he got land of Acs.5 in Sy.No.532/1 of Devarabanda (v). Ex.A2 is the copy of the adangal showing the particulars of the land owned by the complainant. It is not the case of the OPs that the complainant has no land. It is further case of the complainant that on 20-10-2009 he purchased 40 packets of Bejo Sheetal onion seeds from OP.No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.920/- through D.D. Ex.A1 is the bunch of the seed packets purchased by the complainant. Ex.A3 is the counter foil of the application for obtaining D.D for Rs.920/- infavour of ADH , Kurnool. As seen from the evidence available on record it is very clear that the complainant purchased the onion seed through OP.No.1. 

8.     According to the complainant he transplanted the onion crop in his land of Acs.2 , that he applied fertilizers and pesticides and that  there was absence of bulb formation in onion crop. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated about the failure of the onion crop in his land. According to the complainant the crop failure in his land was due to the defect in the seed produced by OP.No.3. It is the case of OP.No.3 that the onion seed purchased by complainant should be raised in rabi season but the complainant raised the onion nursery in kharif season. It is not the case of the complainant that he had gone through Ex.B4 and B5 before transplanting the onion crop in his land. It is further case of the OP.No.3 that some of the farmers who raised the  same variety of the seed in their lands got good yield . To prove the same OP.No.3 relied on the affidavit evidence of G.Ramachandra Reddy , Sarpanch of G.Yerragudi (V).  The sarpanch of the village in his letter Ex.B2 stated that the farmers took subsidy seed from the Horticulture Department, and that it gave good yield.  The complainant did not place any expert evidence to show that the seed produced by OP.No.3 was a defective one and as a result there was no good yield  from the onion crop . In a decision reported in III (2009) CPJ 19 (NC) the National Commission observed that in the absence of an expert evidence it can not be held that the seed supplied was defective. In the present case on hand also there is no material on record to show that the seed that was supplied by OP.No.2 and 3 was defective. The complainant along with his written arguments filed report of the Tahsildar , Dhone (M) dated 16-11-2010. In the said report it is stated that the complainant here in was not able to get good yield because of poor quality of seed. Admittedly by 16-11-2010 there was no crop in the land of the complainant. The Tahsildar made oral enquiries in the village and basing on the said enquires he come to the conclusion that the complainant did not got good yield from the onion crop . Merely basing on the report of the Tahsildar it can not be said that the seed that was supplied by OP.No.1 and 3 was a defective one. As already stated there is no expert evidence to come to the conclusion that the seed lot No.94536 supplied by OP.No.1 and 3 was a defective one. The complainant might have incurred loss of crop because of other reasons . For it the OPs can not be held responsible. The complainant failed to prove that there was defect in the seed supplied by the OPs.               

9 Point No. 3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs .    

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23^rd day of December, 2010.

          Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

     APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties : Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Bunch of seed packets (36) issued by the Horticulture Department, Dhone.

Ex.A2.       Adngal  fasli 1419F in Sy.NO.532/1  issued by VRO, Devarabana village, Dhone Mandal,

Ex.A3.       Receipt of District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Kurnool dt.20-10-2009 for Rs.975/-.

Ex.A4.       Photo copy of letter dt.09-03-2010 of complainant to the Asst.Director of Horticulture, Kurnool.

Ex.A5.       Photo copy

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

Ex.B1.       Photo copy of letter dt. 05-10-2010 Horticulture officer, Pebberu, Mahaboobnagar District to Asst.Director of Horticulture, Kurnool.

Ex.B2.       Photo copy of letter dt.28-02-2010 of G.Ramachandra Reddy, Sarpanch, G.Erragudi village, Tuggali Mandal.

Ex.B3.       Authorization letter dt.17-05-2010 issued by OP3.

Ex.B4.       Methods of management practices Book in Telugu language published by the OP 3.

Ex.B5.       Catalogue Book published by the OP No3

Ex.B6.       Photo copy of letter dt. 27-07-2010 issued by OP3 to Asst.Director of Horticulture-I, Kurnool.

Ex.B7.       Reply letter dt. 29-07-2010 to Sales Officer, Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Kurnool.

Ex.B8.       Report submitted by the G.Erragudi, surpanch,

dt. 28-02-2010.

         Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on   :